Is this the key to a Ron Paul win?

[nomark]

Ron Paul is the most popular candidate online. He was in 2008 and now in 2012. Most online polls show him wining by a landslide.

But he's only getting 20%-25% of the vote.

Why? How can there be a such a huge difference between internet and non-internet people? I believe there is an easy explanation. Internet people are informed. And they are informed from a very wide range of sources. Whereas those not online get selective information from a very narrow range of sources.

So what I'm doing now is when I meet someone who is not a Ron Paul supporter, I say something like "You don't spend much time online, do you?"

So far, it's working. Most of those who are not Ron Paul fans are not connected very well. So I ask them, "Which is better? A lot of information from a narrow range of sources, or a little bit of information from many, many sources?" Most say it's better to have a wide range of sources for information. (But some don't, so they are dead ends and I don't waste my time.) But for those that do think a wide range of information sources is better, I say "You need to get online more often before you vote" and leave it at that.

What do others here think?

Any way to boil this concept down to a bumper sticker or a 15 second slot?

Thanks!

[cstarace]

Won't really help us garner the older demographic and sort of reinforces the stereotype that Ron Paul supporters are internet trolls... "Paulbots".

[Enforcer]

Online, you meet a lot of trolls, double agents, etc. Still, the average Ron Paul supporter has more information than Joe Public.

The issue for all Ron Paul supporters is that the ones on line cannot understand that Ron Paul must appeal to a broad demographic. Let's take the Hispanic vote. Reagan and Bush were garnering almost half of the Hispanic vote. Under McCain and the anti - Hispanic fervor in this country, that support dwindled down to 31 percent of the Hispanic vote. By 2010, the Hispanics were supporting Democrats with 65 percent of the Hispanic vote.

Several times I have introduced a sound immigration policy; however, the entire country is being misled by the globalists and we are being conned into losing, at a minimum FOUR PERCENT of the voters in this country and if we courted the Hispanic vote with a sound immigration policy, there is potentially 8 percent of the vote for us to gain. Nobody on this board even responds to the immigration proposals I've presented on this board - all of which are consistent with what Ron Paul has stated he believes about immigration.

We also do not actively go after the elderly that are relying on Socialist Security. We need a sound policy that can be explained in small sound bytes. As long as the Democrats are telling old people that the Republicans are after their Socialist Security checks, it is a big demographic we are flushing down the toilet.

A lot of gun owners do not realize how anti - gun the rest of the playing field really is. BTW, before Gingrich went to Congress, he and I attended a gun show in Marietta, Georgia. I was an officer in the county Republican Party one county over from Newt and we met there to discuss politics. He's always been lukewarm, at best, on the subject of gun control. We should be going after Gun Owners of America and other gun rights groups to get endorsements and forget the NO Rifles Association.

In order to do all of this, Ron Paul supporters have got to learn how to beat the streets. I've helped win elections where we had relatively no money. You get out and go door to door with flyers and well informed campaign workers that can answer questions about RON PAUL'S PLATFORM. In this day and age I see that as being a major obstacle. Many people come here, claim to be Ron Paul supporters, but their political ideology is 180 degrees OPPOSITE of what Ron Paul campaigns for. If you want Ron Paul to be president, you have to present RON PAUL'S PLATFORM and give people flyers on Ron Paul with the website so that those who rarely access the net can go and get more answers... and Ron needs a site where HE answers specific questions about his views, from time to time.

Finally, Ron Paul has to be able to now point out that Newt Gingrich is a poor choice for President. Gingrich is too confrontational and divisive. He will cause nothing but gridlock in Congress. Ron Paul, while an outsider, could be a peacemaker in Congress and be successful much the same way that Jesse Ventura was successful as a third party Executive department leader.

[nomark]

I realize we are not going to convert 100% of the population. In fact, 60% would be a landslide.

I believe the people online are no different from the people offline. People are people. And as Dr. Paul puts it, freedom is an easy sell.

I just see people online as having a wider range of news sources and actually take the time to read as many as possible. I think that once people are exposed to additional views, they naturally come to the conclusion "if I want my freedom, I have to acknowledge others rights as well."

IOW, "we don't have to agree on everything, we just have to agree on one thing: Freedom for people to run their own lives."

I say things like "You really need to get online more often." or "See what you've been missing, get online." or "You know wht they say about an opinion... " They say, "Everyone has one?" I say "No, it's only half the story."

I know there is no fixing dumb or blind stubborness, but the more people we can get online, the more we can convert with just simple reasoning.

As for hispanics.. I have to say I have not read your other posts on the subject, but I think to link hispanics to immigration is a mistake. Hispanics are either here legally or illegally. The illegal ones are not supposed to vote, so I ignore them. The ones here legally I think are just like everyone else. They want a job, have something nice and enjoy their families. I think to get to these people we use the same argument: centrally planned economies kill jobs because they kill innovation and creativity. If you want a job with any future you probably will never be hired by a central planner. Those jobs are the dead end jobs. The jobs with futures are the ones that are created by people thinking outside the box and solving someone elses problem is a new and exciting way. I do not think we should automatically link immigration with hispanics. It's like saying hispanics are a one dimensioned group. I know manyl hispanics (living in the SW USA for 30+ years) and they are not. They are mostly about having a good job and providing for their families. Way more than immigration.

Like Dr. Paul says, freedom is an easy sell. :)

[sillvergirl]

Ron Paul is the most popular candidate online. He was in 2008 and now in 2012. Most online polls show him wining by a landslide.

But he's only getting 20%-25% of the vote.

Why? How can there be a such a huge difference between internet and non-internet people? I believe there is an easy explanation. Internet people are informed. And they are informed from a very wide range of sources. Whereas those not online get selective information from a very narrow range of sources.

So what I'm doing now is when I meet someone who is not a Ron Paul supporter, I say something like "You don't spend much time online, do you?"

So far, it's working. Most of those who are not Ron Paul fans are not connected very well. So I ask them, "Which is better? A lot of information from a narrow range of sources, or a little bit of information from many, many sources?" Most say it's better to have a wide range of sources for information. (But some don't, so they are dead ends and I don't waste my time.) But for those that do think a wide range of information sources is better, I say "You need to get online more often before you vote" and leave it at that.

What do others here think?

Any way to boil this concept down to a bumper sticker or a 15 second slot?

Thanks!

Bumper sticker... " LIVE and BE FREE " ...( RON PAUL, the BEST ) or "PAY MORE FEES"...( SAY ALL of the REST )